Engine Failure Drills
Join Date: May 2002
Location: NSW
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Menen and Centuras
You make a lot of sense. What nonsense is this stuff about turning away from a fire. Don't we fly balanced anymore?
Sideslip perhaps and that can be a benefit if it allows you to reach the ground quickly......but not too hard.
As for real shutdowns. Much has been written on this sfoohardy practice. And it is one of the most stupid unsafe procedures that modern aviaton and regulators allow.
Despite so much evidence as to the risks (yes do a risk managment exercise on it) it continues to be a "standard".
It's a little like smoking. We know it hurts us but ............."I like it and it feel good".
Not like sex. It IS good.
You make a lot of sense. What nonsense is this stuff about turning away from a fire. Don't we fly balanced anymore?
Sideslip perhaps and that can be a benefit if it allows you to reach the ground quickly......but not too hard.
As for real shutdowns. Much has been written on this sfoohardy practice. And it is one of the most stupid unsafe procedures that modern aviaton and regulators allow.
Despite so much evidence as to the risks (yes do a risk managment exercise on it) it continues to be a "standard".
It's a little like smoking. We know it hurts us but ............."I like it and it feel good".
Not like sex. It IS good.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is refreshing to see someone that recognizes the folly of shutting down a perfectly good engine and creating an emegrency situation when none existed before the shut down...
But we all know that a lot of idiots end up being our regulators.
There is only one reason that I will full feather an engine in flight and that is if the thing has failed mechanically.
I understand that the British CAA requires full feathering in the air, well if that is their requirement they can do it themselves, and I sure wouldn't go with them.
Didn't someone arrive somewhere in England recently with one shut down because it wouldn't unfeather after a practice shut down in fligh?
I rest my case. .
Chuck E.
But we all know that a lot of idiots end up being our regulators.
There is only one reason that I will full feather an engine in flight and that is if the thing has failed mechanically.
I understand that the British CAA requires full feathering in the air, well if that is their requirement they can do it themselves, and I sure wouldn't go with them.
Didn't someone arrive somewhere in England recently with one shut down because it wouldn't unfeather after a practice shut down in fligh?
I rest my case. .
Chuck E.
I am somewhat surpised to see the comments from the Australian posters. Last year there was a lively exchange in this forum on the subject of Multi Engine EFATO drills. Several down under instructors were advocating pulling the mixture right at rotation
and therefore I got the impression that was common practice. I am very glad to see there is a more sensable approach being advocated now
and therefore I got the impression that was common practice. I am very glad to see there is a more sensable approach being advocated now
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to wonder about all this talking of side-slips to try and keep the flames away to one side.
If the airspeed is 70Kt and a moderate side-slip is made, what is the sideways vector in Kt and what is the resultant of both the forward and sideways vectors?
Most engines are placed in front of a fire-wall so do pilots really what to encourage the fire to one side of that barrier perhaps exposing part of the wing.
One "instructor"/"examminer" insists that when he simulates an engine fire, an immediate side-slip to get onto the ground as directly as possible regardless of landing area is made while the fuel is turned off. When flying with one of his former students, I wrote the type of fire on the back of a nav log and then simulated "smoke from the engine".....he immediately closed the throttle, started a mad side-slip simulated turning the fuel off and told me he was landing in a small potatoe field which would have damaged the aircraft (perhaps more if we had continued the sideslip into the ground) - time from 2000ft to surface was about 1min 30sec.
After we climbed back to a safe height, I revealed the back of the nav log which simply said - "Electrical fire - turn off the master".
I changed my mind about simulating a cabin fire for fear that the instructor had told the guy to jump out the door.
Never mind the possible damage to the aircraft. What if this pilot had unnecessarily force landed on a mountainside in winter. Shame for passengers to die from the cold when a nice warm engine is available to take them home!
Perhaps we need to remind instructors of what an engine fire is and what an uncontained engine fire is.
Regards,
DFC
If the airspeed is 70Kt and a moderate side-slip is made, what is the sideways vector in Kt and what is the resultant of both the forward and sideways vectors?
Most engines are placed in front of a fire-wall so do pilots really what to encourage the fire to one side of that barrier perhaps exposing part of the wing.
One "instructor"/"examminer" insists that when he simulates an engine fire, an immediate side-slip to get onto the ground as directly as possible regardless of landing area is made while the fuel is turned off. When flying with one of his former students, I wrote the type of fire on the back of a nav log and then simulated "smoke from the engine".....he immediately closed the throttle, started a mad side-slip simulated turning the fuel off and told me he was landing in a small potatoe field which would have damaged the aircraft (perhaps more if we had continued the sideslip into the ground) - time from 2000ft to surface was about 1min 30sec.
After we climbed back to a safe height, I revealed the back of the nav log which simply said - "Electrical fire - turn off the master".
I changed my mind about simulating a cabin fire for fear that the instructor had told the guy to jump out the door.
Never mind the possible damage to the aircraft. What if this pilot had unnecessarily force landed on a mountainside in winter. Shame for passengers to die from the cold when a nice warm engine is available to take them home!
Perhaps we need to remind instructors of what an engine fire is and what an uncontained engine fire is.
Regards,
DFC
Guest
Posts: n/a
DFC. I think you are being a bit too clever by halves when you verbalise "Smoke coming from the engine" - then wait for the reaction. If one sees smoke coming from an engine say on a light twin, one would be silly not to immediately assume that where there is smoke there is fire - and that turning off the battery or master switch would be a case of the well known pissing into the wind, so to speak.
When you set such a scenario then you must explain quite clearly what sort of smoke - black as all hell or thick or whispy and so on. The victim under test can at least have a go at identifying the possible cause of the smoke and may modify his actions appropriately. In other words the instructor should avoid the risk of being labelled a smart-arse.
If in a single engine aircraft with no engine fire extinguisher, significant smoke is spotted coming from the engine, then there is little doubt that an immediate forced landing should be considered while pondering the unknown source of the smoke.
There have been fatal accidents where delay in initiating an emergency descent has been the direct cause of incapacitation due smoke inhalation and it's all over Red Rover.
An electrical fire forward of the engine firewall must be an awfully rare event and you cannot honestly blame your colleague for not second guessing what sort of smoke you are hanging on him.
When simulating any emergency such as that which you described in your post, it behoves the testing officer (or whoever he calls himself) to make your scenario crystal clear so that the person under test has no doubt as to what you are trying to simulate. Just hollering "Smoke in the engine" means zilch and is a poor way of signalling your intentions. Buy your long suffering student a beer...
When you set such a scenario then you must explain quite clearly what sort of smoke - black as all hell or thick or whispy and so on. The victim under test can at least have a go at identifying the possible cause of the smoke and may modify his actions appropriately. In other words the instructor should avoid the risk of being labelled a smart-arse.
If in a single engine aircraft with no engine fire extinguisher, significant smoke is spotted coming from the engine, then there is little doubt that an immediate forced landing should be considered while pondering the unknown source of the smoke.
There have been fatal accidents where delay in initiating an emergency descent has been the direct cause of incapacitation due smoke inhalation and it's all over Red Rover.
An electrical fire forward of the engine firewall must be an awfully rare event and you cannot honestly blame your colleague for not second guessing what sort of smoke you are hanging on him.
When simulating any emergency such as that which you described in your post, it behoves the testing officer (or whoever he calls himself) to make your scenario crystal clear so that the person under test has no doubt as to what you are trying to simulate. Just hollering "Smoke in the engine" means zilch and is a poor way of signalling your intentions. Buy your long suffering student a beer...
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Not in Kansas anymore
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
- carb ON
- glide BEST
- engine RESTART, if no go SHUT-DOWN
- Mayday call
- Pax Brief
during this whole time you would be choosing your field and planning your approach.
There are primary actions vs. secondary actions.
Plan your approach!!! make that field. Choose two key points. Base points, 1,000ft agl. Build your own circuit. 172, i would pick 2 base key points (left/right base ), 1,000ft AGL and 1 mile out (1/2 base & 1/2 final). try for the first base, if too high, go for the second one. Judge your approach. Once you use flaps you are committed, I would hold off on the flaps and slip if I need to. Once on final and are sure of making your field, you can use flaps in accordance to the type of landing to be carried out (i.e. soft, short, obstacle, etc.)
Secondary actions would be the restart.shutdown, mayday call, pax briefing.
All emergencies are different, but teach your students the PDM skills or help them develop so they can have a fighting chance if faced with a real one.
- glide BEST
- engine RESTART, if no go SHUT-DOWN
- Mayday call
- Pax Brief
during this whole time you would be choosing your field and planning your approach.
There are primary actions vs. secondary actions.
Plan your approach!!! make that field. Choose two key points. Base points, 1,000ft agl. Build your own circuit. 172, i would pick 2 base key points (left/right base ), 1,000ft AGL and 1 mile out (1/2 base & 1/2 final). try for the first base, if too high, go for the second one. Judge your approach. Once you use flaps you are committed, I would hold off on the flaps and slip if I need to. Once on final and are sure of making your field, you can use flaps in accordance to the type of landing to be carried out (i.e. soft, short, obstacle, etc.)
Secondary actions would be the restart.shutdown, mayday call, pax briefing.
All emergencies are different, but teach your students the PDM skills or help them develop so they can have a fighting chance if faced with a real one.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the subject of engine failures in S/E aircraft the Z-242L AFM states:
and one of the engine failure actions:
Stall speed is 60 knots clean so would someone be able to tell me why the drills don't involve trimming for best-glide and why the 78kt mimimum?
The maximum gliding distance is obtained at CAT. A,U: 73 knots (135 km/h)
Control the aircraft - MAINTAIN 78 knots MIN.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Eire
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chuck Ellsworth
The CAA do not advocate full feathering during practice engine failures. The only time I have had to do that was under the FAA training syllabus.
The CAA only operate "Touch Drills". In itself, however, I have heard it said that this has set the stage for situations when in the case of a real engine shut-down, the PIC just did the touch drills!
Compromise training drill (although this is neither CAA nor FAA) is for student to fully retard the prop lever to the feather position, but instructor to intercept it before prop actually feathers. This (naturally) requires briefing to agree the procedure before hand, but this was done to me by my FAA instructor when I was doing my FAA ME CPL, after having already completed my JAA CPL. I had expressed my concern over a full feather - and he had agreed on the compromise.
Worked for me.
Turning away from the fire is standard CAA (Actually JAA nowadays) training procedure. Like it or not, you will be expected to do this during your flight test - IF the examiner elects to tell you that there is an engine fire.
But look at it this way. I agree that in SE it probably won't make a whole lot of difference, but any difference it does make is likely to be for the better. You DO want the flames (heat) outside the cowling. It's still on the other side of the firewall - but don't expect that to protect you for long. If the flames remain inside the cowling, they are closer to the fuel source of the fire, and the heat build up will melt your plane.
However, when you move up to ME, turning away from the fire is a really REALLY good thing to do, because the engine in question is (more often) beside you - not in front! So learning this drill from the start at the SE PPL level, has the advantage of "Primacy".
I.E. Things learnt first are longest remembered.
The CAA do not advocate full feathering during practice engine failures. The only time I have had to do that was under the FAA training syllabus.
The CAA only operate "Touch Drills". In itself, however, I have heard it said that this has set the stage for situations when in the case of a real engine shut-down, the PIC just did the touch drills!
Compromise training drill (although this is neither CAA nor FAA) is for student to fully retard the prop lever to the feather position, but instructor to intercept it before prop actually feathers. This (naturally) requires briefing to agree the procedure before hand, but this was done to me by my FAA instructor when I was doing my FAA ME CPL, after having already completed my JAA CPL. I had expressed my concern over a full feather - and he had agreed on the compromise.
Worked for me.
Turning away from the fire is standard CAA (Actually JAA nowadays) training procedure. Like it or not, you will be expected to do this during your flight test - IF the examiner elects to tell you that there is an engine fire.
But look at it this way. I agree that in SE it probably won't make a whole lot of difference, but any difference it does make is likely to be for the better. You DO want the flames (heat) outside the cowling. It's still on the other side of the firewall - but don't expect that to protect you for long. If the flames remain inside the cowling, they are closer to the fuel source of the fire, and the heat build up will melt your plane.
However, when you move up to ME, turning away from the fire is a really REALLY good thing to do, because the engine in question is (more often) beside you - not in front! So learning this drill from the start at the SE PPL level, has the advantage of "Primacy".
I.E. Things learnt first are longest remembered.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Jerez
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LD MAX
Where did yuou get this nonsense that you will be expected to turn away from the fire in a ME by a CAA examiner. What Tosh. What is the point of turning away from the fire that will make no differance to where the flames go. Only flying out of balance will make a differance to what the flames may do.
I would also suggest that if you were not taught during your ME training how to do a full feather and restart then your training was lacking. The only caveat would be to be at least 3000' AGL.
Where did yuou get this nonsense that you will be expected to turn away from the fire in a ME by a CAA examiner. What Tosh. What is the point of turning away from the fire that will make no differance to where the flames go. Only flying out of balance will make a differance to what the flames may do.
I would also suggest that if you were not taught during your ME training how to do a full feather and restart then your training was lacking. The only caveat would be to be at least 3000' AGL.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chuck Ellsworth
I take interest in a couple of points in your post;
Quote: "There is only one reason that I will full feather an engine in flight and that is if the thing has failed mechanically."
If this is the case (and you are instructing in ME aircraft) I feel your students are missing an extremely important part of their transition training. To experience something for the first time and actually do the actions for the first time when you have the stress of a real engine failure/fire/problem can and will only add more stress to the situation;..... crap my engines on fire.....if I pull this lever will the aircraft continue flying.....my instructor said it would......I still have 30 miles to the nearest airport......
And there is the "here is proof" element during training. Using only zero thrust may not convince some students that the aircraft can continue flight, very successfully in some cases, with one engine actually shut down. This could lead to premature decisions being made in the real scenario due to the doubt in performance/handling.
Quote: "Didn't someone arrive somewhere in England recently with one shut down because it wouldn't unfeather after a practice shut down in fligh?"
I would suggest (and I know for fact absolutely nothing of the incident you speak of) that the shutdown may not have been conducted from 3000 AGL (As Angel's One Fife mentioned) and/or the aircraft was in a poor mechanical state and/or the aircraft was not fitted with unfeathering accumulators - all being, in my opinion, requirements for a twin used regularly for shutdowns.
Interested on your thoughts of why not to include it in the training.
AML
I take interest in a couple of points in your post;
Quote: "There is only one reason that I will full feather an engine in flight and that is if the thing has failed mechanically."
If this is the case (and you are instructing in ME aircraft) I feel your students are missing an extremely important part of their transition training. To experience something for the first time and actually do the actions for the first time when you have the stress of a real engine failure/fire/problem can and will only add more stress to the situation;..... crap my engines on fire.....if I pull this lever will the aircraft continue flying.....my instructor said it would......I still have 30 miles to the nearest airport......
And there is the "here is proof" element during training. Using only zero thrust may not convince some students that the aircraft can continue flight, very successfully in some cases, with one engine actually shut down. This could lead to premature decisions being made in the real scenario due to the doubt in performance/handling.
Quote: "Didn't someone arrive somewhere in England recently with one shut down because it wouldn't unfeather after a practice shut down in fligh?"
I would suggest (and I know for fact absolutely nothing of the incident you speak of) that the shutdown may not have been conducted from 3000 AGL (As Angel's One Fife mentioned) and/or the aircraft was in a poor mechanical state and/or the aircraft was not fitted with unfeathering accumulators - all being, in my opinion, requirements for a twin used regularly for shutdowns.
Interested on your thoughts of why not to include it in the training.
AML
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I shall try and explain my stand on why I do not full feather engines for the sole purpose of demonstrating to a student that a certified feathering device does in fact work.
First allow me to point out some facts regarding the instance where a propellor did not unfeather during a practice feathering session just recently.
(1) I have no idea at what altitude they feathered the thing, however it did fly to an airport on one engine because they had feathered one and it would not unfeather.
(2) The airplane was in excellent mechanical condition because it had been worked on for several years during the restoration process.
(3) The Engine had just come out of a major overhaul and had less than 100 hours on it. Also the propellors had been overhauled and new blades installed.
(4) No it did not have unfeathering accumulators on it, it was a radial with an electrical driven feathering mechanism that is independant of the engine driven accessories.
When discussing flight training we should bear in mind that there are many different mechanical / electrical methods of feathering propellors and in fact some props can be feathered and the engine is still running such as the P&W PT6 for instance.
I personally have almost bought the farm on two occasions because I feathered an engine and it would not unfeather.
So I got to thinking about it and decided that I did not want to go for three strikes and you are out, therefore I will not feather unless there is no other choice other than a mechanical need to.
If we use the mindset that a student must experience the sensation and sight of a fully feathered propellor or he/she may freeze when a real emergency developes then why not demonstrate flight above VNE until we reach the flutter realm of the structure?
After all we have only read that VNE and flutter exist therefore why not demonstrate it just to prove that it will happen?
Each of us must decide where our comfort and safety limits are and using that baseline develop a system of instruction that teaches the student the art of flying ,... safely,... that I have tried to do during my career and so far my students have demonstrated that they have what it takes to grab the bull by the balls in an emergency and pull that feather lever, or push that button for their first look at a feathered propellor, but only when there is a reason to do so..
Those who preach the necessity for full feathering of engines must also realize that they are limiting the conditions wherein feathering can be safely taught...such as during very cold weather in the winter when feathering an engine would be foolhardy to say the least.
So very briefly there are some of my thoughts on this subject, I may not be the greatest of pilots or the best of instructors but I'm still alive to continue on.
Chuck E.
First allow me to point out some facts regarding the instance where a propellor did not unfeather during a practice feathering session just recently.
(1) I have no idea at what altitude they feathered the thing, however it did fly to an airport on one engine because they had feathered one and it would not unfeather.
(2) The airplane was in excellent mechanical condition because it had been worked on for several years during the restoration process.
(3) The Engine had just come out of a major overhaul and had less than 100 hours on it. Also the propellors had been overhauled and new blades installed.
(4) No it did not have unfeathering accumulators on it, it was a radial with an electrical driven feathering mechanism that is independant of the engine driven accessories.
When discussing flight training we should bear in mind that there are many different mechanical / electrical methods of feathering propellors and in fact some props can be feathered and the engine is still running such as the P&W PT6 for instance.
I personally have almost bought the farm on two occasions because I feathered an engine and it would not unfeather.
So I got to thinking about it and decided that I did not want to go for three strikes and you are out, therefore I will not feather unless there is no other choice other than a mechanical need to.
If we use the mindset that a student must experience the sensation and sight of a fully feathered propellor or he/she may freeze when a real emergency developes then why not demonstrate flight above VNE until we reach the flutter realm of the structure?
After all we have only read that VNE and flutter exist therefore why not demonstrate it just to prove that it will happen?
Each of us must decide where our comfort and safety limits are and using that baseline develop a system of instruction that teaches the student the art of flying ,... safely,... that I have tried to do during my career and so far my students have demonstrated that they have what it takes to grab the bull by the balls in an emergency and pull that feather lever, or push that button for their first look at a feathered propellor, but only when there is a reason to do so..
Those who preach the necessity for full feathering of engines must also realize that they are limiting the conditions wherein feathering can be safely taught...such as during very cold weather in the winter when feathering an engine would be foolhardy to say the least.
So very briefly there are some of my thoughts on this subject, I may not be the greatest of pilots or the best of instructors but I'm still alive to continue on.
Chuck E.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Jerez
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chuck Ellsworth
You should consider whether you are the right person to be instructing ME training. What tosh are you talking about; that because you could not unfeather the engine you nearly bought the farm. You still no doubt had one engine to carrry out the approach and landing on and if all else failed, aircraft will still glide you know.
Your drawing a comparison between experiencing an feathering of the prop and of flying above VNE is just utter nonsense. Flying intentionally above VNE is structurally unsafe whereas flying a multi on one engine has no structural implications at all and if you are not demonstrating to your students that the aircraft flies exactly the same on one as it does on two or three then again you are missing out a huge amount of their training. Flying on one engine is not about looking at a stationanry prop it is about experiencing the handling characteristics and as such is a great confidence building exercise.
It is no doubt poor instructing in ME flying that leads to poor accident statistics for MEP in the Americas that leads to people thinking that it is better to fly SET public transport.
"Each of us must decide where our comfort and safety limits are and using that baseline develop a system of instruction that teaches the student the art of flying ,... safely,... that I have tried to do during my career and so far my students have demonstrated that they have what it takes to grab the bull by the balls in an emergency and pull that feather lever, or push that button for their first look at a feathered propellor, but only when there is a reason to do so.. "
Rubbish. It is not grabbing a bull by the balls just to feather an engine; it is a piece of piss and easy as pie. Making your student think it is grabbing a bull by the balls is just gung ho he man ignorance of the plain and simple fact that it is no big deal to be flying on one engine. The only problem in feathering a piston is doing it too slowly. Because your poor student will not be used to seeing it and be too busy worrying about whether the aircraft will fly or not then it could be argued they may act too slowly. And as I am sure you know wait too long and let the rpm get too low and you will never get it feathered. Then they really will will be scraming Mayday but a fat lot of good it will get them unless the aircraft has major excess power.
You should consider whether you are the right person to be instructing ME training. What tosh are you talking about; that because you could not unfeather the engine you nearly bought the farm. You still no doubt had one engine to carrry out the approach and landing on and if all else failed, aircraft will still glide you know.
Your drawing a comparison between experiencing an feathering of the prop and of flying above VNE is just utter nonsense. Flying intentionally above VNE is structurally unsafe whereas flying a multi on one engine has no structural implications at all and if you are not demonstrating to your students that the aircraft flies exactly the same on one as it does on two or three then again you are missing out a huge amount of their training. Flying on one engine is not about looking at a stationanry prop it is about experiencing the handling characteristics and as such is a great confidence building exercise.
It is no doubt poor instructing in ME flying that leads to poor accident statistics for MEP in the Americas that leads to people thinking that it is better to fly SET public transport.
"Each of us must decide where our comfort and safety limits are and using that baseline develop a system of instruction that teaches the student the art of flying ,... safely,... that I have tried to do during my career and so far my students have demonstrated that they have what it takes to grab the bull by the balls in an emergency and pull that feather lever, or push that button for their first look at a feathered propellor, but only when there is a reason to do so.. "
Rubbish. It is not grabbing a bull by the balls just to feather an engine; it is a piece of piss and easy as pie. Making your student think it is grabbing a bull by the balls is just gung ho he man ignorance of the plain and simple fact that it is no big deal to be flying on one engine. The only problem in feathering a piston is doing it too slowly. Because your poor student will not be used to seeing it and be too busy worrying about whether the aircraft will fly or not then it could be argued they may act too slowly. And as I am sure you know wait too long and let the rpm get too low and you will never get it feathered. Then they really will will be scraming Mayday but a fat lot of good it will get them unless the aircraft has major excess power.
Last edited by Angel´s One Fife; 20th Sep 2004 at 18:30.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ChuckE
I would have to agree with Angel´s One Fife second paragraph. I would think it extremely foolish to purposely demonstrate something outside the flight manual limitations and more over how do you justify that to a student?
I should have added to my previous post that aircraft doing regular shutdowns should be new(ish) - I don’t know of any recent radial powered designs. I guess my point was, I would select the aircraft I did regular shutdowns in carefully.
On a light training twin that I regularly use to conduct shutdowns as part of ME conversions my thoughts on unfeathering are as follows (and no doubt I am putting myself to the slaughter); get the prop windmilling / engine turning, introduce some fuel and if nothing is wrong mechanically the engine will fire.
Problems could occur with the unfeathering mechanism (and in my opinion I would favor a hydraulic device over an electrical one because I think a malfunction with an electrical device is more likely) which should be covered by my mechanical condition of the aircraft requirement. Lets say the but the blades don’t fully unfeather (and therefore are not rotating) but are free to move); cranking the engine using the starter is sufficient to get the blades rotating and failing this (it would have to be an unlucky day) my 3000’ AGL requirement allows me to trade height for speed and the increased airflow through the blades begins rotation (typical height loss 300’ - 800’ and I make this a demonstration during training). Should something go wrong with the engine still operating then I back myself from 3000’ AGL to restart the one I have shutdown and return to base (feathering the one that is now causing real problems).
I conduct approx 3 shutdowns for every student and give them slightly different scenarios for each - reduced pwr setting prior to shutdown, engine on fire, failure during cruise etc. I also include actual fuel cross-feed with one engine shutdown during training.
Quote: “If we use the mindset that a student must experience the sensation and sight........”
It’s not the sensation and sight of stationary blades I consider most important. If I had to put it into a statement I would say it is the decisions/actions associated with and decision/actions that follow the shutdown. It surprised me (and still does) how many students fail to do something as basic as increase power or reduce drag or why they ‘fight’ the aircraft because they have not trimmed rudder/elevator/aileron when handling an actual shutdown for the first time. There are also many students who handle everything at a level well above their experience but it is the former that I am most satisfied with because you can bet the improvement displayed after making a dubious decision the first time, is ten fold when given another chance - something that is only possible during training.
I agree in part with your comment about personal safety limits. No instructor should contemplate doing something with a student that they don’t feel competent in themselves - the student has put their life in your hands.
For the ME shutdown case, in my opinion provided suitable precautions are taken, the benefits outweigh the exclusion during initial conversion training.
AML
I would have to agree with Angel´s One Fife second paragraph. I would think it extremely foolish to purposely demonstrate something outside the flight manual limitations and more over how do you justify that to a student?
I should have added to my previous post that aircraft doing regular shutdowns should be new(ish) - I don’t know of any recent radial powered designs. I guess my point was, I would select the aircraft I did regular shutdowns in carefully.
On a light training twin that I regularly use to conduct shutdowns as part of ME conversions my thoughts on unfeathering are as follows (and no doubt I am putting myself to the slaughter); get the prop windmilling / engine turning, introduce some fuel and if nothing is wrong mechanically the engine will fire.
Problems could occur with the unfeathering mechanism (and in my opinion I would favor a hydraulic device over an electrical one because I think a malfunction with an electrical device is more likely) which should be covered by my mechanical condition of the aircraft requirement. Lets say the but the blades don’t fully unfeather (and therefore are not rotating) but are free to move); cranking the engine using the starter is sufficient to get the blades rotating and failing this (it would have to be an unlucky day) my 3000’ AGL requirement allows me to trade height for speed and the increased airflow through the blades begins rotation (typical height loss 300’ - 800’ and I make this a demonstration during training). Should something go wrong with the engine still operating then I back myself from 3000’ AGL to restart the one I have shutdown and return to base (feathering the one that is now causing real problems).
I conduct approx 3 shutdowns for every student and give them slightly different scenarios for each - reduced pwr setting prior to shutdown, engine on fire, failure during cruise etc. I also include actual fuel cross-feed with one engine shutdown during training.
Quote: “If we use the mindset that a student must experience the sensation and sight........”
It’s not the sensation and sight of stationary blades I consider most important. If I had to put it into a statement I would say it is the decisions/actions associated with and decision/actions that follow the shutdown. It surprised me (and still does) how many students fail to do something as basic as increase power or reduce drag or why they ‘fight’ the aircraft because they have not trimmed rudder/elevator/aileron when handling an actual shutdown for the first time. There are also many students who handle everything at a level well above their experience but it is the former that I am most satisfied with because you can bet the improvement displayed after making a dubious decision the first time, is ten fold when given another chance - something that is only possible during training.
I agree in part with your comment about personal safety limits. No instructor should contemplate doing something with a student that they don’t feel competent in themselves - the student has put their life in your hands.
For the ME shutdown case, in my opinion provided suitable precautions are taken, the benefits outweigh the exclusion during initial conversion training.
AML
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I sort of thought someone would comment on my post.
So, Angle on fire allow me to elaborate on my thoughts and my methods of teaching.
The first time I could not unfeather was in a Piper Apache and it would not maintain on one because of another problem no one had caught, when checking the aircraft over subsequent to my being unable to maintain it was discovered that the nose wheel doors were not closing properly and that was enough to cause a 150 hp Apache do drift down.
In that instance I made it to a farm strip that I knew was close, otherwise I would have had to force land somewhere away from an airport.
On the second occasion the feather motor burnt out and the prop would not unfeather, I had feathered the left engine and unfeathered but the other pilot said he would like to see the unfeathering proceedure again so I feathered the right one, and when I was unable to unfeather I was now without an engine driven hydraulic pump. I will not bore you with the rest of the problems except to say we did manage to get the gear down and land the thing safely.
As to whether I should be teaching on or even flying multi engine aircraft I am not to worried about that as I do believe I know what I am doing.
Just today during our per flight briefing we discussed this very topic and everyone whom I am training were comfortable with my methods and my teaching ability.
My reference to VNE was tounge in cheek and not meant in the context you may have read it.....so I with draw that part of my comment.
However I will still submit that engine out flying skills can be taught by simulating rather than full feathering and shutdowns. And I support that by once again stating that having shut down an engine that is operating normally you have now put yourself in an emergency situation when none existed before the shut down......unless of course losing an engine is not an emergency situation in which case I am wrong.
For what it is worth I have had to shut engines down in conditions that were extreemly difficult from the high Arctic to the tropics and managed to get them all safely on the ground.
But hey if you are really serious about my not being competant teaching on and flying multi engine aircraft, PM me and maybe you can make some money teaching me how to do it.
But be forwarned when you get to the bit where you want to show me the airplane will still glide if the other one fails I will sit on the ground and you can show me your skills without me in it.
In any case I will go with what ever the regulators approve as far as my being able to teach and fly on these things, right now I am teaching under an approval from a JAA country and last time I checked it was not revoked.
Chuck
AML :
We as flight instructors all have slightly different methods, ideas and ways of teaching people how to safely fly aircraft.
My preference and method of teaching engine out airplane handling is to carefully and fully explain what we will be doing and what the airplane we are flying is capable of.
It is my personal opinion that if my student is capable of flying the aircraft properly with an engine in simulated feather thrust and then with the power brought bact to simulate performance below that of a feathered engine and they have performed the vital actions up to but not actually full feather they can and will complete the process should the need ever arise where the engine must be feathered........
......it is all in how well you program the student and how aware the student is of what the airplane will do and how skillful his/her flying is under your tutelage.
I am well aware that my methods will not sit well with many of my colleauges, but I will put my students up against anyone here as to their skill level and comprehension of what is happening during flight.
By the way there are many, many flying machines out there and they all have their own limits and systems, I could be wrong but some of the comments that are posted here are from people with a very limited exposure to a wide variety of flying machines.
Anyone want to discuss the issues that one will face in an engine failure in a Sikorsky S61 at all up weight and max collective up power limits with regard to the input clutches?
By the way it does not glide with both engines out worth a damn.
Chuck
So, Angle on fire allow me to elaborate on my thoughts and my methods of teaching.
The first time I could not unfeather was in a Piper Apache and it would not maintain on one because of another problem no one had caught, when checking the aircraft over subsequent to my being unable to maintain it was discovered that the nose wheel doors were not closing properly and that was enough to cause a 150 hp Apache do drift down.
In that instance I made it to a farm strip that I knew was close, otherwise I would have had to force land somewhere away from an airport.
On the second occasion the feather motor burnt out and the prop would not unfeather, I had feathered the left engine and unfeathered but the other pilot said he would like to see the unfeathering proceedure again so I feathered the right one, and when I was unable to unfeather I was now without an engine driven hydraulic pump. I will not bore you with the rest of the problems except to say we did manage to get the gear down and land the thing safely.
As to whether I should be teaching on or even flying multi engine aircraft I am not to worried about that as I do believe I know what I am doing.
Just today during our per flight briefing we discussed this very topic and everyone whom I am training were comfortable with my methods and my teaching ability.
My reference to VNE was tounge in cheek and not meant in the context you may have read it.....so I with draw that part of my comment.
However I will still submit that engine out flying skills can be taught by simulating rather than full feathering and shutdowns. And I support that by once again stating that having shut down an engine that is operating normally you have now put yourself in an emergency situation when none existed before the shut down......unless of course losing an engine is not an emergency situation in which case I am wrong.
For what it is worth I have had to shut engines down in conditions that were extreemly difficult from the high Arctic to the tropics and managed to get them all safely on the ground.
But hey if you are really serious about my not being competant teaching on and flying multi engine aircraft, PM me and maybe you can make some money teaching me how to do it.
But be forwarned when you get to the bit where you want to show me the airplane will still glide if the other one fails I will sit on the ground and you can show me your skills without me in it.
In any case I will go with what ever the regulators approve as far as my being able to teach and fly on these things, right now I am teaching under an approval from a JAA country and last time I checked it was not revoked.
Chuck
AML :
We as flight instructors all have slightly different methods, ideas and ways of teaching people how to safely fly aircraft.
My preference and method of teaching engine out airplane handling is to carefully and fully explain what we will be doing and what the airplane we are flying is capable of.
It is my personal opinion that if my student is capable of flying the aircraft properly with an engine in simulated feather thrust and then with the power brought bact to simulate performance below that of a feathered engine and they have performed the vital actions up to but not actually full feather they can and will complete the process should the need ever arise where the engine must be feathered........
......it is all in how well you program the student and how aware the student is of what the airplane will do and how skillful his/her flying is under your tutelage.
I am well aware that my methods will not sit well with many of my colleauges, but I will put my students up against anyone here as to their skill level and comprehension of what is happening during flight.
By the way there are many, many flying machines out there and they all have their own limits and systems, I could be wrong but some of the comments that are posted here are from people with a very limited exposure to a wide variety of flying machines.
Anyone want to discuss the issues that one will face in an engine failure in a Sikorsky S61 at all up weight and max collective up power limits with regard to the input clutches?
By the way it does not glide with both engines out worth a damn.
Chuck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Eire
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must admit I support Chuck Ellsworth's view on practice engine shut downs. I see no reason to shut down a perfectly good engine - simply because it may never get going again... and we all know the saying about the remaining engine runs just long enough to take you to the scene of the accident!
I really don't see / understand what educational benefit there is in watching the prop feather and unfeather in flight. We can demonstrate the action of the CSU and the Prop lever. We can Simulate Zero thrust, and we can perform touch or interrupted feather drills without setting the aircraft up for a REAL emergency.
(...and whether it's a PAN or a Mayday is quite academic in my book - it's STILL a real emergency!)
The one caveat I have, (yet I have seen no real evidence of this), is that a student taught touch drills only in practice, might (and I stress "might"), only perform touch drills in a real emergency. I still think the interrupted feather drill is a good compromise - even if it doesn't appear in the manuals.
Angel's One Fife; the advantage of discussing different teaching methods is that we will all take away something positive from it which, hopefully, will improve what and how we teach our students.
So with reference to your contemptuous dismissal of the practice of turning away from the source of fire in a ME aircraft, (and for the benefit of all of us mere mortals for whom the air generally passes in the opposite direction to travel), please would you kindly explain how you would propose to deflect flames from the left hand engine away from the fuselage if you adhered to a Left hand circuit pattern instead of a right hand circuit pattern?
I really don't see / understand what educational benefit there is in watching the prop feather and unfeather in flight. We can demonstrate the action of the CSU and the Prop lever. We can Simulate Zero thrust, and we can perform touch or interrupted feather drills without setting the aircraft up for a REAL emergency.
(...and whether it's a PAN or a Mayday is quite academic in my book - it's STILL a real emergency!)
The one caveat I have, (yet I have seen no real evidence of this), is that a student taught touch drills only in practice, might (and I stress "might"), only perform touch drills in a real emergency. I still think the interrupted feather drill is a good compromise - even if it doesn't appear in the manuals.
Angel's One Fife; the advantage of discussing different teaching methods is that we will all take away something positive from it which, hopefully, will improve what and how we teach our students.
So with reference to your contemptuous dismissal of the practice of turning away from the source of fire in a ME aircraft, (and for the benefit of all of us mere mortals for whom the air generally passes in the opposite direction to travel), please would you kindly explain how you would propose to deflect flames from the left hand engine away from the fuselage if you adhered to a Left hand circuit pattern instead of a right hand circuit pattern?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Jerez
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LD Max
Well let me hope that YOU are not teachingrthat you are not theaching that to yourmulti engine students. You obviously have little or no idea about asymmetric theory. Your idea of turning away from the flames. Perhaps you are one of those people who; if you were a dog, would be chasing your tail all day wondering why you can never catch it.
What type of MEP do you fly and how do you teach your students to establish what the zero thrust settings for the "failed" engine is? If you don't, will not, do your own shutdown how do you and Chucky get a realistic setting. Or did you just grab the figure from out of the sky. I bet when you are using that figure you are fooling yourself; and worse your students into a false sense of performace.
Well let me hope that YOU are not teachingrthat you are not theaching that to yourmulti engine students. You obviously have little or no idea about asymmetric theory. Your idea of turning away from the flames. Perhaps you are one of those people who; if you were a dog, would be chasing your tail all day wondering why you can never catch it.
What type of MEP do you fly and how do you teach your students to establish what the zero thrust settings for the "failed" engine is? If you don't, will not, do your own shutdown how do you and Chucky get a realistic setting. Or did you just grab the figure from out of the sky. I bet when you are using that figure you are fooling yourself; and worse your students into a false sense of performace.
Last edited by Angel´s One Fife; 20th Sep 2004 at 18:34.
Life is all about risk management and risk/benefit analysis.
To manage the ME engine failure risk we teach how to cope with engine failures in various stages of fright and ensure that the stude understands the foolhardiness and futility of attempting to go around or continuing a departure after a failure near the ground.
To manage the MEPL training risk we use failure simulation rather than actually shutting down, but training would be incomplete if we stopped there. The UK syllabus requires a shutdown and restart as part of asymm2 and I haven't yet had a stude that hasn't had a semi-religious experience when they see the blades stopped and the aircraft still flying. This is the only time they do the full drill and the only opportunity to demonstrate that all the things we teach them are true. There is significant benefit from the exercise; the risk is minimised by doing it above 3000ft within asymm reach of a suitable airfield. If you happily fly SEPL you shouldn't have a hang up about a single shutdown for each MEPL stude.
LDMax, I'm afraid you may need to revise your asymm theory old chum. Engine failed and ball centred the aircraft is slipping towards the failed engine, applying a small amount of bank to the live and decreasing rudder can achieve zero nett slip.
Turn direction is not relevant to a fire; sideslip may be relevant but that is not linked to turn direction. Another point is that most MEPLs have fuel tanks outboards of the engines, it may not be a good thing to yaw to put the flames over that part of the wing.
But this is all academic. Shut the fuel off and feather the engine. If the flames don't go out fly a controlled circuit in either direction to a controlled landing in the best available place using power on the live engine to help.
Here's to Happy Landings and Perfect Studes.
HFD
To manage the ME engine failure risk we teach how to cope with engine failures in various stages of fright and ensure that the stude understands the foolhardiness and futility of attempting to go around or continuing a departure after a failure near the ground.
To manage the MEPL training risk we use failure simulation rather than actually shutting down, but training would be incomplete if we stopped there. The UK syllabus requires a shutdown and restart as part of asymm2 and I haven't yet had a stude that hasn't had a semi-religious experience when they see the blades stopped and the aircraft still flying. This is the only time they do the full drill and the only opportunity to demonstrate that all the things we teach them are true. There is significant benefit from the exercise; the risk is minimised by doing it above 3000ft within asymm reach of a suitable airfield. If you happily fly SEPL you shouldn't have a hang up about a single shutdown for each MEPL stude.
LDMax, I'm afraid you may need to revise your asymm theory old chum. Engine failed and ball centred the aircraft is slipping towards the failed engine, applying a small amount of bank to the live and decreasing rudder can achieve zero nett slip.
Turn direction is not relevant to a fire; sideslip may be relevant but that is not linked to turn direction. Another point is that most MEPLs have fuel tanks outboards of the engines, it may not be a good thing to yaw to put the flames over that part of the wing.
But this is all academic. Shut the fuel off and feather the engine. If the flames don't go out fly a controlled circuit in either direction to a controlled landing in the best available place using power on the live engine to help.
Here's to Happy Landings and Perfect Studes.
HFD
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Angel's....
As I previously mentioned we each have our own methods of teaching people how to fly, I have my personal methods and they have over the years worked for me.
By referring to me as " Chucky" am I to take that to mean that I am some child who you are trying to chastize?
Once again as I have previously mentioned, if you really feel you can improve my flying ability and improve my teaching methods please PM me with your background and outline what you have to offer and maybe I shall take some training from you....providing of course you can show that I would not be wasting my money.
I would hate to think that I am not a safe multi engine pilot, so maybe you can save me from disaster.
Chuck Ellsworth
As I previously mentioned we each have our own methods of teaching people how to fly, I have my personal methods and they have over the years worked for me.
By referring to me as " Chucky" am I to take that to mean that I am some child who you are trying to chastize?
Once again as I have previously mentioned, if you really feel you can improve my flying ability and improve my teaching methods please PM me with your background and outline what you have to offer and maybe I shall take some training from you....providing of course you can show that I would not be wasting my money.
I would hate to think that I am not a safe multi engine pilot, so maybe you can save me from disaster.
Chuck Ellsworth
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Jerez
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chuck
Why do you take everything to be an affront. No I was not trying to chastise (with an s not z) you. I repeat what I wrote earlier.
"What type of MEP do you fly and how do you teach your students to establish what the zero thrust settings for the "failed" engine is? If you don't, will not, do your own shutdown how do you and Chucky get a realistic setting. Or did you just grab the figure from out of the sky. I bet when you are using that figure you are fooling yourself; and worse your students into a false sense of performance."
Just because you confronted your students and they say they are happy does not mean a thing. Students will rarely ever confront an instructor they are unhappy with to their face. They will just go and ask for and instructor change to someone higher up the chain. If their is only one or two instructors in the area then they will probably just go along with a bad one as it is a case of they will be unable to judge if they are in fact being taught correctly because they will have no other benchmark to compare with.
What JAA approval are you working under? If it is for MEP do you just falsely claim to have taught a shutdown and restart in flight on the form? Please do enlighten me.
The problem with instructors is they try to use their own methods when in fact there are rather standardised ways of doing things that are normally tried and tested and have stood scrutiny from many learned men and are much better than someone's own method.
Why do you take everything to be an affront. No I was not trying to chastise (with an s not z) you. I repeat what I wrote earlier.
"What type of MEP do you fly and how do you teach your students to establish what the zero thrust settings for the "failed" engine is? If you don't, will not, do your own shutdown how do you and Chucky get a realistic setting. Or did you just grab the figure from out of the sky. I bet when you are using that figure you are fooling yourself; and worse your students into a false sense of performance."
Just because you confronted your students and they say they are happy does not mean a thing. Students will rarely ever confront an instructor they are unhappy with to their face. They will just go and ask for and instructor change to someone higher up the chain. If their is only one or two instructors in the area then they will probably just go along with a bad one as it is a case of they will be unable to judge if they are in fact being taught correctly because they will have no other benchmark to compare with.
What JAA approval are you working under? If it is for MEP do you just falsely claim to have taught a shutdown and restart in flight on the form? Please do enlighten me.
The problem with instructors is they try to use their own methods when in fact there are rather standardised ways of doing things that are normally tried and tested and have stood scrutiny from many learned men and are much better than someone's own method.
Last edited by Angel´s One Fife; 20th Sep 2004 at 18:35.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Angel's.......
I will try and answer some of your questions.
I am a one person business offering advanced flight training.
I am qualified on many multi engine aircraft piston, turbo prop and jet. From the Piper Twin commanche to the A320.
My specality is PBY's DC3's and the C117.
I am not fooling myself nor my students, I do not pick numbers out of the sky.
All my business is by referral only and my customers include Air France, Airbus Industries, and many rich warbird collectors.
One of my students by the name of Glen Dell just won the world unlimited aerobatic competition this year in sweden. ( See the African thread here in Pprune. )
I am presently giving six type ratings here in Holland on a restored PBY under the approval of the Dutch CAA.
I also hold an Air show display authorisation here in the Netherlands and flew two air display sessions last Saturday at the Lelystad Airshow.
One of my students is a Dutch CAA Inspector and when I get him type rated you can ask him if I am competent.
I do not falsify training records...period...I am not teaching ab-initio students, I do only advanced flight training.
However some years ago I owned a flight training school both fixed wing and helicopters in Canada and I recommended students for the Transport Canada multi engine flight test and was clear that I would not and did not full feather / shut down an engine that was running normal. Non of my recommendations were turned down and non failed the TC flight test.
As to your comments about standardised flight training, once again I do not give standardised training, I teach advanced flight training and my rate is 250 euro per hour.
Pavlov's dogs give standardised training, some of us have figured out that flying by rigid numbers and rote learned proceedures make for medicore pilots.
Yesterday I flew 3.8 hours and my two students are anxious to learn more and are quite happy with paying me my rate.
You in another post opined that I maybe should not even be flying multi engine airplanes, let alone instructing on them.
I am merely defending myself by answering your questions.
Over to you angel's.
Chuck Ellsworth
I will try and answer some of your questions.
I am a one person business offering advanced flight training.
I am qualified on many multi engine aircraft piston, turbo prop and jet. From the Piper Twin commanche to the A320.
My specality is PBY's DC3's and the C117.
I am not fooling myself nor my students, I do not pick numbers out of the sky.
All my business is by referral only and my customers include Air France, Airbus Industries, and many rich warbird collectors.
One of my students by the name of Glen Dell just won the world unlimited aerobatic competition this year in sweden. ( See the African thread here in Pprune. )
I am presently giving six type ratings here in Holland on a restored PBY under the approval of the Dutch CAA.
I also hold an Air show display authorisation here in the Netherlands and flew two air display sessions last Saturday at the Lelystad Airshow.
One of my students is a Dutch CAA Inspector and when I get him type rated you can ask him if I am competent.
I do not falsify training records...period...I am not teaching ab-initio students, I do only advanced flight training.
However some years ago I owned a flight training school both fixed wing and helicopters in Canada and I recommended students for the Transport Canada multi engine flight test and was clear that I would not and did not full feather / shut down an engine that was running normal. Non of my recommendations were turned down and non failed the TC flight test.
As to your comments about standardised flight training, once again I do not give standardised training, I teach advanced flight training and my rate is 250 euro per hour.
Pavlov's dogs give standardised training, some of us have figured out that flying by rigid numbers and rote learned proceedures make for medicore pilots.
Yesterday I flew 3.8 hours and my two students are anxious to learn more and are quite happy with paying me my rate.
You in another post opined that I maybe should not even be flying multi engine airplanes, let alone instructing on them.
I am merely defending myself by answering your questions.
Over to you angel's.
Chuck Ellsworth